Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / go_parse() and hash code directly copied debate
1 2 3 Previous Next  
- - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-19 23:37
We have found two pieces of code directly copied already.  The go_parse() code was first.  Then Richard's hash code from rybka 1.0 beta which matches fruit right down the line except for maybe two minor differences in over 40 lines of code.

Don't try to hand-wave those away.  Ed has been hanging his hat on the "Rybka has duplicate white/black code while fruit does not, which shows originality."  Protector, a fruit version converted to bit boards ALSO has separate white/black code.  I assume we now assume protector is ALSO original?   Yet another argument debunked.

Here's what I CAN do.  I can use 43 years of teaching programming courses, grading assignments, and detecting student copying, and apply that experience to compare fruit and rybka.  While I can't prove with 100% accuracy it was copied, I am absolutely convinced, based on my experience, that it was.  I can prove to 100% accuracy that it is POSSIBLE to generate Rybka algorithmically by simply enumerating every combination of characters.  Might take a while, but it is possible.  So there is always SOME possibility two different people wrote code so similar.  But that probability is so small no one would reasonably claim it causes "reasonable doubt" in any way.

I simply look at too many programs each and every semester, what I see in Fruit/rybka I do NOT see in my student's programming assignments.  Others agree because there has been a lot of research on automatically detecting plagiarism by doing semantic analysis.  Nothing would do very well with fruit/rybka because the board representations are so different, but humans have a bit better pattern recognition skills.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-20 09:15
We have found two pieces of code directly copied already.  The go_parse() code was first.

What... ???

It's completely different.

http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm

Even Zach agreed on that.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 10:01
who cares anyway? engine is the important bit, not the interface code
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 14:04
I've already gotten that point from the two of you.  go_parse() is irrelevant.  Hashing?  Who cares?  Older versions?  Who cares...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 14:23
The interface code is irrelevant. The engine is relevant.

Hashing. Has Richard finished yet? I didn't get the memo.

Versions that were not in ICGA tournaments are not relevant.

The most important bit is the evaluation function, which is why your team, Zach and Watkins wrote papers about it. But because you can't prove any copying in the evaluation function, you want to keep referring to >=0.0 which turned out to be false as well.

Why don't you stop with the flying off sideways on irrelevant tangents?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 14:31
Not much point in discussing this for two reasons.  (1) you dismiss anything you can't refute as being "irrelevant".  Copied code is copied code, no matter where it is.  (2) nothing will change until Vas decides to contact the ICGA.  All a big waste of time.

Hashing is clear.  go_parse() is clear.  Eval is less clear because of the bitboard to mailbox issues.  You immediately want to exclude anything that is clear and obvious.  I get it.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 14:42
If you need an excuse to run away, feel free.

I dismiss anything that is irrelevant as irrelevant. User interface code is not for Rule 2.
Ed insists that your go parse is not copied.

Who or what is the ICGA? Are they (it) relevant? I thought in the age of the internet nowadays, we decided things in open debate?

Has Richard finished yet?

Eval is indeed "less clear", like mud. You threw it around but you proved nothing.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 14:53
You can debate whatever you want.  It won't change a thing relative to this case, however. 

BTW code that sets the target time and such IS "game playing code".  "interface code" would be the GUI such as xboard/winboard or whatever.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 15:10
Parsing user commands is not game playing code. And anyway, your famous >=0.0 turned out to be false.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-20 16:23
False and known and withheld from the documents.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 18:29
You act like the comparison is the incriminating part of this.  Wrong.  0.0 is the incriminating thing.  2x in Rybka.  2x in Fruit.  Rybka has no floating point time management.  Rybka doesn't even use the first variable initialized to 0.0.  Looks pretty suspicious to me.  I think Richard said EXACTLY the same thing, BTW.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 18:27
No, it was apparently changed to > 0.0.  Big deal.  Did you notice the orphaned assignment at the TOP of the Rybka binary, where a variable is set to 0.0 but NEVER used?  Did you look at fruit?  :)  (it is there, of course).
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 13:58
"completely different"?  Zach didn't agree to any such thing.   You apparently never understood Richard's comments either.  You said some things were not initialized in Fruit's go_parse() while they were in Rybka's.  Richard pointed out they WERE initialized in the same place in the fruit binary due to inlining.  Making them line up very closely.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-20 20:06
"completely different"?  Zach didn't agree to any such thing.

Are you calling me a liar? :cool:


You apparently never understood Richard's comments either.

Going through you your monthly period again? :wink:

Let's review this. Watkins endorses the Rick Fadden analysis and calls it evidence. Fadden invents loads of Rybka variable names that are not present in Fruit. Is that fantasy or code not? Or am I not allowed to report fantasy code? :razz:

Here:

RYBKA  (according Fadden)
ignoreClockFlag
depthLimit
stopSearch    
nodeTickLow = 1024;
bestMove   = 0;  
moveScore  = 0; 
depthScore = 0;    
clackFlag  = 0;
nodeTickHigh = 1;   


Where in Fruit Bob ?

Rich fantasy endorsed by Watkins.

Used as evidence against Rybka.

And that's just the minor part of the criticism against the so called copied parse_go, about everything is different, what you have is 2 floats.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 20:49
Go to search.cpp, find module "search_clear()".  This is inlined when you compile protocol.cpp.  Richard explained this to you.  Why playing like you have never seen it???

The thread with his analysis has it laid out in an understandable way...

I suppose I can cut/paste search_clear() if you can't find it.  It is technically a part of the go_parse() stuff since it is called from inside it, and the compiler inlines it...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 20:54
Everybody knows by now what it means when you change the subject to go-parse and 0.0
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 21:28
You realize I was answering a question DIRECTLY asked by Ed?  His question is referring to go_parse() and the initialization stuff Richard posted.  Or is this yet another example of your not knowing what is being discussed?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-21 00:08
Why playing like you have never seen it???

????

Present are these:

SearchRoot->bad_1 = false;
SearchRoot->bad_2 = false;
SearchRoot->change = false;
SearchRoot->easy = false;
SearchRoot->flag = false;


Hence I left them out.

The rest (I listed above) are not present.

You have a problem with my nitpicking on Fadden's sloppiness?
Parent - - By Richard Vida (**) Date 2013-09-21 00:39

> The rest (I listed above) are not present.
>


Let me look them up for you...

Rybka(Fadden)     Fruit
=================================================
ignoreClockFlag   SearchInput->infinite
depthLimit        SearchInput->depth_is_limited
stopSearch        SearchInfo->stop
nodeTickLow       SearchInfo->check_inc
bestMove          SearchBest->move
moveScore         SearchBest->value
depthScore        SearchRoot->last_value
clackFlag         SearchInfo->can_stop
nodeTickHigh      SearchInfo->check_nb
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-21 11:00
Sure, I can guess what Fadden in his sloppiness likely meant myself.

Problem is, the charge states non-existing invented names. The defender is not responsible for the errors the prosecutor, Fadden and Watkins in this case. Instead the defender addresses the errors of the prosecutor, that's his job.

Look, I am not insensitive for criticism on my work if it brings consensus on the presentation of the facts so I have made changes, I had to update the page anyway because of the second float.

old - http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm
new - http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden2.htm

The UCI parse_go case is one of the few accusations about literal copying by Watkins, hence important. The page makes a case against it by listing every difference to Fruit, it's then up to the reader to make up his mind how likely the accusation is.
Parent - - By Richard Vida (**) Date 2013-09-21 11:34

> Problem is, the charge states non-existing invented names.


It is hard to please you, isn't it? He had to give them some names since symbols were stripped from the executable. Had he followed Fruit variable naming you would object to "deliberate fruitification". He instead tried to be non biased and made up neutral names based on their usage and you object to "non-existing invented names".
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-21 12:34
No, I would not have objected, I prefer the facts.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-21 16:40
You have ALREADY OBJECTED to "fruitification".  please...

MANY TIMES.  It has become the mantra of you and trotsky.

:)

Edit:  You have ALSO objected to his "sloppy naming".  In short, the only way you would not object would be if he had not done the RE in the first place...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-21 18:40
You have ALREADY OBJECTED to "fruitification".  please...

Surely there are fruitification examples, the Material Imbalance table as worst example.

But hey, not in the current context.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-21 18:56
Nothing but complaints about variable name usage from you and trotsky.  Most recent example is the open file / half-open file score names...
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-21 16:39 Edited 2013-09-21 16:41
"sloppiness"?  If he had matched the variables with Fruit's names, you call that "fruitifying the RE".  No way to win there.  There are no symbols in the rybka binary.  No doubt to make RE more difficult.  All one can do is look at the various variables, and try to discern what they are used for from the binary.

You are apparently trying to make some sort of point, by making statements you know are false.  So where is this going to end up?  You are intentionally trying to run around the procedure inlining that goes on when a source is compiled...

Edit:  Sorry Richard.  you had already responded.  I look at the "replies to your posts" items first, rather than running thru the entire thread.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 10:58 Upvotes 1
Yeah well, I have 20 years experience of running a company of 20 programmers, converting engines for 20 different strategy games written in 20 languages for 20 wildly different platforms and 20 different user interfaces and getting it all through the 20 most difficult quality control regimes in 20 different countries and 20 languages. So I know all about converting, rewriting, starting again, copying, reusing, throwing away in a tough competitive commercial environment whe deadlines and quality needs to be met and contracts adhered to. And I am absolutely convinced it was NOT copied. Of course it might have been copied, but the possibility is so small that nobody could reasonably claim it.

But, in the end, no opinion, based on feelings and belief and emotion  (which is what you're doing) is worth a pinch of salt without solid evidence. You don't have any, you have suspicions, but no direct evidence. For any example, you can make inferences in one direction, and inferences in the other direction. For the open file code, as an example, your inference is just plain BS, as you well know. You can't pin Rybka on using the function becasue every program uses the function. You can't pin it on semantic equivalence, because Rybka is unique and all/most other programs, including yours are semantically equivalent. You can't pin it on ANDing masks with files because that's how everybody fast does it.

So, what do you do? You omit the mass of different code needed to support the lookup masks. Very different for Fruit Rybka. If we unrolled that lookup code and put it inline then it would swamp the six lines you did show and you'ld be struggling to find any match at all. You apply false names to everything, and claim Vas is testing for open files. He is not testing for open files, but your naming says he is, that's a deliberately misleading cheat.

So what's left for you? The claim that his IF THEN ELSE data is arranged "quirkily". That is your "evidence". Over the last two years a good number of programmers have chimed in to say it is not a quirk, they do the same thing themselves. Most recently Professor Ballicora stated "this is not a quirk, I do it myself". Your evidence is contradicted. An unbiased judge would say "the so called quirk evidence is expert contested and therefore proves nothing either way". An unbiased judge would also say, "the unique different algorithm evidence is true,it has not been contradicted, this difference indicates the code does somethign different with the data input, produces a chessicly different output and suggests the code was not copied".  Next subject ....
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 13:57
The claim is that THAT piece of evidence shows a quirk.  The claim is that OTHER pieces of evidence show outright copying.  the two floating point 0.0's in go_parse().  Now we have the ttable code that is a near-perfect match with SEVERAL "quirks".  Etc.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 14:32
The quirk that isn't a quirk.
The >=0.0 that doesn't actually exist and is (or not actually) in irrelevant interface code
Some hash code apparently. Has Richard finished?

That's it? When did you start looking, 2009? Four years ago, or more? I assume you've been backwards and forwards many times through Rybka by now and that is all the evidence you found?

You raised a massive cloud of suspicion, but the dust settled and what was there? Very little it seems.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 14:38
So it is > 0.0 rather than >= 0.0.  Someone pointed out the reason, that of actually allowing 0.0 target.

Richard finished the hash code.  I do not know if he is still looking around or not.  But the hashing code represents a significant problem for your side.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-09-20 16:32
I didn't look in detail at it, I told you I was going to wait for Richard to finish.

However, if you say it represents a problem, and Ed is not disagreeing, then maybe so. But, after four years of obsessively going through Rybka, that is the only significant problem you found, hash storage with twelve or so lines of code? What kind of case is that, is it more serious that your PST table+8? Czechmate cheat on wedding photo hubristically displayed by the dung beetle, disqualified for life and business destroyed?

For a few lines of code, that may well have an explanation even? It was worth the whole process was it? Bizarre.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-09-20 18:22
It is more like 40 lines of code.  It was all published by Richard, copied by me and aligned with Fruit to show the match.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-21 21:23 Edited 2013-10-21 21:35
Even I as a complete amateur, I agree with your judgement on Ass. Prof Hyatt. If one reads the Prof. it become clear very quickly that we have the phenomenon of a so called expert idiot savant who is obsessed by his decades long examining of students if there is something to be qualified as cheating (copying). There is absolutely no doubt that Bob has the qualification to discover if someone took his Crafty or copied something.

But note, this expert is unwilling to use a sophisticated method which takes into consideration, on what planet or research field he is actually living. He sees students and seeks cheats students do.

What I'm trying to discriminate, the idiotic application of a talent that is misused because the expert likes to dance on stage as a super primadonna.

I see some other crimes. A student knows that a different code without any single violation is his test for examinations. His code is NOT in any way relevant for e.g. a World Championship. THe single student must not create code that later wins a tournament.

I learned that the ICGA ordered the originality rule and if you take Rybka 1 beta and any other program, nobody had the impression that R1 just was a clone of anybody. Shortly afterwards Rybka began to win the Championships. She was so much better than the others.

I call it crimes by Hyatt or his allies, because it's madness if a winner program is destroyed in a community by humiliating the author and making the tricks of his creation public to the /attention - this is a total difference to university student works/ fighting others who desperately also want to win something. By raping the integrity of Rybka all others suddenly, ok, if they were intelligent enough, could use Rybka features. Since this is about money income for the Rybka authors family, the whole alleged research in real is stealing, robbing, handicapping the leader.

I follow these debates from time to time and it is clear that an obsessed maniac cannot realise the damages he's doing to other human beings. It's also impossible for an idiot savant to ignore certain eye catching details in our surrounding, because he always sees patterns but would run into cars and die if he wouldnt be protected by parents or aids. Only if Bob is convinced, he's watching friends, Americans, out of the old days, Bob can even ignore cheating, e.g. how the Deep Blue people cheated Kasparov. Then he proves that the cheat is no cheat at all. Again the same unfair discussing methods are initialized. He changes the topic early enough if it becomes dangerous. He enters into filibuster mode so that every normal opponent either falls asleep or must go to work.

The whole debate is changed into a war, propaganda war. With dehumanizing of the enemy, that is why I called it *nazi-like* misbehavior, because this is how the Nazis dehumanized and later massmurdered the Jews.

Aside from that, you can have Bob as a fantastic friend if you go with him to a gambling hall. If you like to go to war, Bob will deliver the neccessary ideology.

Is this ok with the human rights in the eternal American Constizution? No, but on the other side Americans have the right to have opinions. Free Speech.

Both of you get my big thank you for demonstrating the evil of that monster perversion of an originally for universities a valuable talent.

What Ed Snowden has allowed us to understand, this is exactly the evil of a typical befriended nation USA. They love you like rats of mice in a lab. But with their British friends they steal your balls so that you are defenseless. If you still resist, the rules are cheated.

We must defend ourselves. We should never forget how Vas Rajlich and Ed Snowden, also the wikileaks leader are discriminated.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-23 14:07
well, it's  a european-centric view of Hyatt to allocate him to class OCD or idiot-savant, as he subjectively appears understandable on that basis. It seems inconceivable that someone  can spend a life in university, albeit a comp science dept, and appear to know so little of what a european academic would just "know" by default. But, then he doesn't understand you, or "us" either. An American friend of mine sent me email some time ago saying that Hyatt was nothign special, they were all like him "down there", meaning in the Confederate rump. He said, they are very generous, hospitable period, but slight one, and he'll spend the rest of his life trying to find new ways to kill you. Add to that the old style cultural belief that disputes are sorted, not by language and logic, but by fists or power, that the enlightenment is for commies and sissies, add some absolutism, and the world view divide is practically unbreachable. Each side thinks the other is nuts, or OCD or idiot savant or whatever. It's a case of "thats what they are like", collectively idiot savant from our perspective. Good people fighting evil from their perspective. Whatever, it was foreseeably catastrophic to put him in charge of that panel.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-23 19:30
What's with all the stereotypical garbage?  Do you REALLY think this makes your case look better, rather than worse?

You need a good mirror.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-23 19:42
Oh, I was defending you against the OCD and idiot-savant ideas by saying you were just a Confederate cultural product and not specifically bonkers. But you misread my meaning. Bye.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-23 20:25
An American friend of mine sent me email some time ago saying that Hyatt was nothign special, they were all like him "down there", meaning in the Confederate rump. He said, they are very generous, hospitable period, but slight one, and he'll spend the rest of his life trying to find new ways to kill you.

As I said, "stereotypical".
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-24 14:43
it should say "generous, hospital people" by the way, dunno how "period" crept in there.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-24 18:11
Really doesn't change anything.  I don't know of anyone that gets into an argument and then spends the rest of his life trying to kill that person.

I've been all over the world and I have not see a great deal of difference between the people of the US, china, Japan, Canada, Europe, etc.  Never been to either pole so I can't say much about them, but I have been to Alaska and found nothing unusual up that far North.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-24 19:11
Whatever. I shouldn't have answered your first intervention. I am quite happy to discuss the relative insanity of Rybka Witch hunters here on Rybka forum with debaters with interesting stuff to say, like, for example awrist. But not with the witch hunter himself. If I wanted that, I could come and seek you out on your home forum. Technical yes, but discussion of other issues with you is, in my opinion, quite pointless, being repeatedly misread gets annoying after a while, and the understanding chasm is, again in my opinion, too great to bridge. World Hyatt is sad, but uninteresting after a while. Bye again.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-24 21:00
Suits me...
Parent - - By ernest (****) [fr] Date 2013-10-26 17:44

> debaters with interesting stuff to say, like, for example awrist


How many bottles of Bordeaux do you need to ingurgitate, in order to express opinions like that?...
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-27 17:33
The next dirty trick is to pretend that someone like me who attacks a Jew as President who does lynch justice in opposition to legal justice, that I must be evil because one simply doesnt attack and criticise a Jew after all what had happened in the Holocaust. If that were honestly true, the victims of the Holocaust and their relatives and offspring could do all they wanted no matter how evil it is. All critics would be Antisemites. -

Why was it lynch justice against Rajlich if Levy always argues that Vas was invited to defend himself etc.? The answer is easy. Vas was prejudged in a 5 year long hate campaign initiated by Monsieur Theron. After such a dirty scapegoating nobody could seriously believe that he could defend himself as innocent. Levy should have stopped the defamation of the World Champion in time and then a fair examination could have been possible.

In legal justice everybody must be seen as innocent until after the examination a final verdict has been spoken. But in the Levy&Hyatt lynch Rajlich was already defined guilty many years before the examination had begun.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-27 17:47
Why don't you buy a dictionary?

lynch :  kill (someone), esp. by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.

No one was killed.  No one was hung.  Find words that make sense so that you don't look like a moron.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-27 19:18 Edited 2013-10-27 19:22
I've missed you a bit. Like all good teachers you always play devil's advocate to get the best out of every student. Look at this. The absence of legal justice with all the difficult procedures you are so familiar with, that is lynch justice. Why do you think it's such a hard job in your system of justice how you choose the jurors? The only reason is, that no prejudgement whatsoever should predefine the trial. Beware e.g. like it happend against Vas, that all his losers he had beaten before suddenly became part of the verdict search in the panel/trial. Are you so blind now that you cannot see this or do you play that to betray others because they trust you? The violation of legal justice principles is absolute fact and cannot be denied in the ICGA process. Didnt I warn you in time not to play expert, judge and jury all together against Vas? How could you as experienced speaker of the jury abuse your own American law system?? Couldnt you repair your wrong by just understanding that Vas didnt violate anything of your rights on Crafty when he took it to make some tests? Maybe he overstepped certain rules hereby, but do you want to conclude that his superority came through his tests with Crafty? The feeling of being cheated is one aspect, but shouldnt you come to a smarter judgement? Why do you want to defamate Vas so dearly? Look, for Kasparov, who also felt heavily cheated by your American friends, for him you didnt initiate such a long clerical mourning, like this shameful fake of the ICGA and Levy that took your time of almost 5 years!

In real you are absolutely not such a weaky who couldnt tell David Levy to finally correct that lifelong ban against Vas. I know you a little bit and read more than once how you see certain things differently to others out of ICGA. Am I right or wrong with that?

As I told you long ago, this mistreatment of Vas is poisoning the whole community and since we only have a private club, and we have no murder case or something the like, it should be clear that we must find peaceful solutions for the whole process. Please do something good for all of us. Who should do it if not you?????    :wink:
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-27 19:43
Hyatt has always seen his own subset of the "whole community" as the "whole community". He sees himself as the central figure, the inheritor and continuation of the names he keeps dropping, the definer of the history and the author of the definitive program which contains everything in all its versions of all and every idea known and to be known. When you ask him "to do something good for all of us", he can only see the "us" as himself. He owns and defines what "us" means.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-27 20:15
Sorry, but your degree in psychology is worthless here.  I don't see myself as the "center" of anything.  Never did.   I don't speak or evaluate things for the "us" you claim.  I evaluate for the ICGA.  I speak for myself.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-27 20:21
Sorry, I have no Venn diagram overlap with you. Get off my cloud.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-25 11:21
From having lived in several regions, and within them been exposed to a great variety of people, there is quite a large difference between the people in some regions and/or cultural backgrounds.  There is a huge difference between southerners and northeasterners, for example (I grew up in Georgia).  Northeasterners are generally more "open-minded", but only toward liberal ideas, while southerners tend toward conservative types of ideas.  Southerners tend to be more stubborn toward experience, while the northeasterners are stubborn toward what they've read in a book (without being open to the idea of the book being wrong!).  I would say that Chinese people are more stubborn toward experience than any people in the United States, but place a much higher value in the education leading to this knowledge of experience.  The Japanese largely lack this stubbornness and are also harder-working and more serious, but also more "cold".  I can't say much about Canadians, and Europeans are such a diverse group that it would be incorrect to make many generalities, and it would take too long to list the differences.  Overall, southeastern American people are not the only stubborn ones, but are often the most intolerably stubborn (other than Chinese people), never admitting they're wrong in the face of incontrovertible evidence, especially when it comes to religion, to which they generally adhere more than anything else; they are also the most arrogant (Japanese people are probably the least arrogant).  Of course, you obviously have much diversity within all of these groups, with the exception of the Chinese, who have become uniform by a general lack of exposure to other cultures (90% of Chinese are Han Chinese) and the political climate tending to eliminate deviant ideas from society altogether.

In any case, I think it peculiar to say "I have not see a great deal of difference between the people of the US, china, Japan, Canada, Europe, etc." unless you're speaking in much more general terms than I have, in which case the statement is just a tautology.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-25 16:29
I am speaking about basic topics.  Education.  Ethics.  Not things like soccer vs football fans and such.  People are people.   I've not noticed one group being more or less arrogant, or more or less forgiving, or more or less stubborn myself.  Perhaps the circles I move around in when I go outside the US.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / go_parse() and hash code directly copied debate
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill